dustincorreale

I see what you mean but others might need that. Like I don't think my mom would read a book that was just about ideas and lingering moments, but if she'll read the book for the plot, then she will still be exposed to the ideas. It could help extend the authors reach.

I read this almost exactly 3 years ago, so my memory isn't specific, but I really liked it, and when I finished, I went on a deep dive (for me) trying to unpack it and figure out how I felt about things in it. I wrote a way too long unpacking that I'll try to focus down here. Non-spoiler. I really loved how the information was delivered. The telling takes place in the world of the book, so revelations are dropped casually as if we would already know. The image gradually comes into focus, instead of a snap reveal. I think this also mirrors the way the characters in the book learn things. "knowing without knowing". Never explicitly explained, but understood so gradually that you couldn't really draw a line between when you knew and when you didn't.

I just finished myself. In general I wouldn't say I loved it, but I literally just finished a couple hours ago so it's still settling and unfolding. One thing though, in response to your spoilered issues. I didn't realize this until halfway through for obvious semi-spoiler reasons, but even though it seems like an omniscient narrator, it's still basically Lotto's perspective. Maybe not his perspective, since there's still things he wouldn't know (the door sex scene for example), but still his ... outlook. If not through his eyes, then through his rose colored glasses. So it's a bit of an unreliable narrator, not just in the details, but also in the tone and impression of Lotto and what he deserves. That's why it comes off as so aggrandizing and, in retrospect, dismissive of the rougher edges of their lives. Like for example his shitty friends, I feel like the tone of dealing with them was "yea they have some problems but they're not so bad" but that's because that's how Lotto feels about them, not (i don't think) how we are necessarily supposed to feel about them. This becomes more obvious once you hop out of Lotto's perspective. I might have wished I had that understanding of the skewed perspective earlier, but I think that's actually one of the things the book is "about". The intersection of individual perspectives, and how strongly your interpretation of events and your own past is influenced by what you imagine of yourself.